HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Min 2003-03-19
.
.
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA for March 19, 2003
7:30 p.m.
District 1 - Ellery Deaton
District 2 - Jim Sharp
District 3 - Gordon Shanks
District 4 - David Hood
District 5 - Phil Ladner
Department of Development Services
Lee Whittenberg, Director
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Carmen Alvarez, Executive Secretary
[J
City Hall office hours are 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and
Friday 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Closed noon to 1 :00 p.m.
[J
The City of Seal Beach complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act. If you
need assistance to attend this meeting please telephone the City Clerk's Office at
least 48 hours in advance of the meeting (562) 431-2527.
[J
Planning Commission meetings are broadcast live on Seal Beach TV3. They are
rebroadcast on Sunday evenings, Channel 3 at 4:00 p.m.
[J
Videotapes of Planning Commission meetings may be purchased from Seal Beach
TV3 at a cost of $20 per tape. Telephone: (562) 596-1404.
[J Copies of staff reports and/or written matenals on each agenda item are on file in
the Department of Development Services and City libraries for public inspection.
1
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planmng Commission · Agenda of March 19, 2003
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA INFORMATION SHEET
The following is a brief explanation of the Planning Commission agenda
structure:
AGENDA APPROVAL: The Planning Commission may wish to change the order of the
items on the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission, only
on items not on tonight's agenda, may do so during this time period. No action can be
taken by the Planning Commission on these communications on this date, unless
agendized.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: Public Hearings allow citizens the opportunity to speak in
favor of or against agendized items. More detailed information is found in the actual
agenda attached. If you have documents to distribute, you should have enough copies
for all Planning Commissioners, City staff and the public. Please give one to the
secretary for the City files. The documents become part of the public record and will not
be returned.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that
normally do not require separate consideration. The Planning Commission may make
one motion for approval of all the items listed on the Consent Calendar.
SCHEDULED MA TIERS: These items are considered by the Planning Commission
separately and require separate motions. These transactions are considered
administrative and public testimony IS not heard.
STAFF CONCERNS: Updates and reports from the Director of Development Services
(Planning and Building Departments) are presented for information to the Planning
Commission and the public.
COMMISSION CONCERNS: Items of concern are presented by the Planning
Commissioners and discussed with staff.
All fJroceedinas are recorded.
2
.
.
.
City of Seal Beach Planning Commission
Agenda for March 19, 2003
7:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
II ROLL CALL
III. AGENDA APPROVAL
By Motion of the Planning Commission, this is the time to.
(a) Notify the public of any changes to the Agenda;
(b) Re-arrange the order of the Agenda, and/or
(c) Provide an opportunrty for any member of the Plannrng Commission, staff, or public to
request an Item IS removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action
IV ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
At thiS time, members of the public may address the Plannrng Commission regarding any Items
within the subject matter junsdiction of the Planning Commission, provided that the Plannrng
Commission may undertake no action or discussion unless otherwise authorized by law
V
CONSENT CALENDAR
Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and are enacted by one motion unless
pnor to enactment, a member of the Plannrng Commission, staff, or the public requests a specific
Item be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action.
1 Approve Plannrng Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2003
2 Minor Plan Review 03-3
250 Ocean Avenue
ApplicanUOwner.
Request.
Jim Watson
Architectural review of a proposal to construct a new, bUilt-In BBQ and a
fireplace structure within the rear and side yard setback areas of the
subject property.
Recommendation
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution 03-8
(Continued from March 5, 2003 )
VI PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 Vanance 03-1
250 Ocean Avenue
AppllcanUOwner
Request.
JIm Watson
To vary from the Side yard setback requirements to a nonconforming
Single-family reSidence Specifically, the applicant IS proposing to
construct an 8-foot tall fountain In the Side yard setback area
Recommendation
Pleasure of the Commission (Continued from March 5, 2003 )
3
.
.
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning Commission · Agenda of March 19, 2003
VII SCHEDULED MATTERS
4 DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - Bolsa Chlca Street Waterline
Easement (Bnghtwater Proposed Water Transmission Line Route) (Contmued from March 5,
2003 )
VIII STAFF CONCERNS
IX COMMISSION CONCERNS
X ADJOURNMENT
4
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission · Agenda of March 19. 2003
.
2003 Aaenda Forecast
Apr9
Conditional Use Permit 03-2 -142-8 Main Street
Height Variation 03-3 - 1405 Sandpiper Drive
Minor Plan Review 03-4 - 755 Carmel Avenue
Apr 23
May 7
May 21
June 4
June 18
July9
July 23
Aug 6
. Aug 20
Sept 3
Sept 17
Oct 8
Oct 22
Nav5
Nav 19
Dee 3
Dee 17
TO BE SCHEDULED:
Q Study Session
Q Staff Report
Q Study Session
Q Study Session
.
Permitted Uses and Development Standards In Commercial Zones (5/6/98)
Undergroundlng of Utilities
ADA Handicapped-Accessible Restrooms
Parking Issues In Old Town
5
-
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
I
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.
CITY OF SEAL BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION
Minutes of March 19, 2003
Chairperson Hood called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning Commission
to order at 7:30 p m. on Wednesday, March 19, 2003. The meeting was held in the City
Council Chambers and began with the Salute to the Flag.1
ROLL CALL
Present. Chairperson Hood, Commissioners Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
Also
Present. Department of Development Services
Alexander Abbe, Assistant City Attorney
Mac Cummins, Associate Planner
Absent: Lee Whittenberg, Director
AGENDA APPROVAL
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Agenda as presented.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Chairperson Hood opened oral communications.
There being no one wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed oral communications.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Mr. Jim Watson noted an error on Page 2 of the Staff Report resolution for Minor Plan
Review (MPR) 03-3. He requested that Item No. 2 be removed from the Consent
1 These Minutes were transcnbed from audiotape of the meeting
1
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of March 19, 2003
Calendar for further discussion. Chairperson Hood requested a new motion to approve
the Agenda as amended.
MOTION by Shanks; SECOND by Deaton to approve the Agenda as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
1. Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 5, 2003.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Ladner to approve the Consent Calendar as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
2. Minor Plan Review 03-3
250 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner:
Request:
Jim Watson
Architectural review of a proposal to construct a new, built-in
BBQ and a fireplace structure within the rear and side yard
setback areas of the subject property.
Recommendation:
Approval, subject to conditions and adoption of Resolution
03-8. (Continued from March 5, 2003 )
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins referenced Page 2 and explained that City Code allows construction of
detached accessory structures up to a maximum height of 12 feet, subject to Minor Plan
Review (MPR) and Planning Commission (PC) approval. As such, if the applicant
wishes to construct a BBQ up to 12 feet, Staff has no objection to this. He noted that
the PC has approved similar structures in the past.
The Associate Planner noted that Condition No. 1 of Resolution 03-8 on Page 7 of the
Staff Report should be revised to read: "Minor Plan Review 03-3 IS approved for
architectural review at 250 Ocean Avenue, Seal Beach The proposed project entails
the construction of a 36-inch high freestanding barbeque and bar seating area structure
within the rear yard setback of the subject property. Minor Plan Review 03-3 further
2
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2003
includes the construction of a fireplace not to exceed 12 feet In overall height to be
located in the rear and side yard setback areas."
Public Comment
Mr. Watson stated that the remainder of the Staff Report IS acceptable and he
recommended approval.
MOTION by Sharp; SECOND by Shanks to approve the Minor Plan Review 03-3,
subject to conditions, and adopt Resolution 03-8 as amended.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
5-0
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS
3 Variance 03-1
250 Ocean Avenue
Applicant/Owner'
Request:
Jim Watson
To vary from the side yard setback requirements to a
nonconforming single-family residence. Specifically, the
applicant is proposing to construct an 8-foot tall fountain in
the side yard setback area.
Recommendation: Pleasure of the Commission. (Continued from March 5,
2003.)
Staff Report
Mr. Cummins delivered the staff report. (Staff Report is on file for inspection in the
Planning Department.) He provided some background information on this Item and
stated that the applicant proposes to construct an 8-foot tall fountain in the patio area in
between his house and garage. He said that for structures up to and including 6 feet in
height, Staff has typically processed requests of this nature through a MPR. He
Indicated that because the proposed fountain would exceed the height limit by 2 feet,
this would require a Variance (VAR). He said that under State law the Planning
Commission (PC) must make specific findings with regard to VARs that the property is
unique in some way and deprives the property owner of some use that other property
owners would otherwise enjoy, and the granting of the V AR would not be a special
privilege. He noted that Staff is making no recommendation in this case, but IS leaving
the determination to the pleasure of the PC.
3
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of March 19, 2003
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Shanks stated that the plans are not clear as to how the wall and
fountain are to be constructed and how the wall is to look from the outside. Mr
Cummins Interjected that he was not certain that Mr. Watson has plans to replace the
wall. He said assuming there is a 6-foot wall and because there is a natural grade slope
gOing down toward the beach, the top of the fountain wall would hardly be noticeable
from the stub street. Commissioner Shanks confirmed that what Mr. Cummins was
stating is that there is a 6-foot wall there already. Mr. Cummins stated that he could not
recall.
Commissioner Deaton said that last week Lee Whittenberg had stated that he would
find out how wide the 8-foot extension on the fountain is She asked how wide the
extension would be.
Public Hearina
Chairperson Hood opened the public hearing
Mr. Jim Watson explained that there is an existing wall that is approximately 6 feet tall
on the inside at the elevation of the lot. He said that because the 3rd Street alley comes
down at the pOint where the extension would be, without the additional height requested
it would probably measure 7-8 feet. He stated that he is requesting that an approximate
20-foot long structure with a maximum height of 8 feet be set inside the eXisting wall.
He noted that most of the structure would measure 7 feet in height and would come up
to a 4-foot wide section of the fountain. He said he asked his neighbors to review the
plans and they had no objections. He commented that people walking by cannot see
into the yard because of the down slope of the street He stated that after remodeling
his home, the fountain would sit directly across from the front doors to the house. He
noted that his neighbors' views would not be obstructed since they are approximately
20-25 feet away from his home.
Commissioner Ladner asked why the applicant is requesting 8 feet rather than 6 feet,
which is the standard size. Mr. Watson stated that the 6-foot wall is already in existence
and what he is attempting to do is to create an aesthetically pleasing view when
entering the courtyard, which he believes cannot be accomplished With a 6-foot
structure He said the additional two feet creates the feel of an enclosed courtyard
because it is above the line of sight. Commissioner Ladner asked whether those
walking down to the beach would be able to see this 2-foot extension. Mr. Watson said
that because of the approximate 15-foot downward slope at the bottom of 3rd Street it is
not possible to see inside the existing fence. He noted that the fountain is to be located
inSide the front wall that runs along Ocean Avenue. He said that the finished project
would be compatible and attractive.
Commissioner Deaton asked what the wall height measures from the inside of the
property. Mr. Watson stated that he believes the lowest portion of the existing wall
4
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of March 19, 2003
measures approximately 5 feet. Commissioner Deaton stated that if the wall were 6
feet it would take care of the line of sight. Mr. Watson said that this would only give
about one foot of additional wall. He reiterated that a 7 -foot high wall provides more
privacy and a feeling of being enclosed in the courtyard. Commissioner Deaton
expressed her concerns with the plans for the outside of the wall, as plantlngs tend to
grow out into the public right-of-way and this shrubbery could obstruct the view of those
north of the Gold Coast. Mr. Watson noted that the wall is perpendicular to Ocean
Avenue and would not block the view from Ocean Avenue or from the houses north of
the Gold Coast He said that the City had previously approved a 1 % planter, which is
already planted with bougainVillea that is kept trimmed and does not encroach past the
curb. He indicated that plantings would probably not be utilized with the 8-foot wall, but
the stucco will be matched to the existing wall.
There being no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Hood closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Comments
Commissioner Shanks reiterated that the plans are not clear as to how the final project
will look and how wide it will actually be.
Commissioner Deaton stated that she has not heard anything that would explain a
hardship for the property owner, which legally the PC must be able to find. She asked
Mr. Abbe if this were correct. Mr. Abbe stated that the PC must make findings that
there is something unique about the property that justifies allowing the project to deviate
from the Code and that would grant no special privilege not available to other residents.
Commissioner Deaton then noted that as she interprets the special circumstance, it is
simply that there is a 2%-foot setback on the side of the house rather than the reqUired
7% setback. She said she does not find this to be a hardship. She continued by saying
that she understands the courtyard feeling and believes thiS to be an exceptional idea,
however, the City has Just spent a substantial amount of Staff, Planning Commission,
and City Council time determining all of the grading, wall, fence, and retaining wall
standards, and it has also disallowed future additions or expansions to nonconforming
properties.
Commissioner Ladner stated that he is finding it difficult to accept this request. He said
that an 8-foot tall fountain is large and would be intrusive to people walking by and
neighbors across the street. He noted that bougainvillea tends to "go everywhere"
unless constantly trimmed back.
Commissioner Deaton said she would move to deny because there is no hardship,
because this might constitute special priVilege, and because Staff has done an
extensive amount of work in establishing standards for fences, retainrng walls, etc. She
also noted that the communrty has asked that further additions and expansions of
nonconforming uses be prohibited. She requested that these reasons be listed on the
Resolution 03-7 denYing Variance 03-1.
5
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
CIty of Seal Beach Planning CommIssIon
Meeting Minutes of March 19, 2003
Commissioner Sharp asked the Associate Planner if he were aware of any other
resIdents having a similar structure within the City. Mr. Cummins stated that there were
no others in the side yard setback similar to Mr. Watson's project. He noted that
typically these types of structures are constructed in the rear yard setback because the
provisions specifically allow them, subject to the MPR process.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Ladner to deny the Variance 03-1 and direct Staff to
return an amended Resolution 03-7 to reflect the reasons for this determination.
MOTION CARRIED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
4-0-1
Hood, Deaton, Ladner, and Shanks
Sharp
None
Mr. Abbe advised that denial of Varrance 03-1 begins a 10-day calendar appeal period
to the City CouncIl. The Commissioner action tomght is final and the appeal period
begins after formal adoption of Resolution 03-7.
SCHEDULED MATTERS
4. DETERMINATION OF GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY - Bolsa Chlca Street
Waterline Easement (Brrghtwater Proposed Water Transmission Line Route).
(Continued from March 5, 2003.)
Chairperson Hood stated that because he lives within 300 feet of the easement for the
Bolsa Chica Waterline, he must excuse himself from the proceedings.
Mr. Cummins explaIned that the task before the Planning Commission (PC) is to make a
determination of General Plan (GP) Conformity regarding the proposed Bolsa Chlca
Street Waterline. He noted that the item was continued from the PC meeting of March
5, 2003, to allow Staff to complete more research on this matter. He said that the
request came from the County of Orange Public Facilities and Resources Department to
adopt a resolution finding the proposed waterline to be consistent with the City's GP
He stated that Staff had provided a Draft Resolution that indicated where it was in
conformance with the policies of the Safety Element of the GP, which ensures that any
new public facilities and utility lines are located underground wherever possible and that
the City Engineer notifies other utility companies that have similar underground
structures that might be affected. He stated that Commissioner Deaton had requested
that the other affected cities be contacted to determine what they have done. Mr.
Cummins reported that a survey done by Staff reveals that these cities have not yet
taken any formal action. He reported that Government Code Section 65402 requires
that this type of consistency fInding be made within 40 days of request He noted that
the 40-day perrod ended on March 8, 2003, makIng the City offiCIally not in compliance
with this Government Code. The Associate Planner stated that this type of consistency
finding does not reflect that the City is in favor of or opposed to the project in any way,
6
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of March 19, 2003
but simply states that when a new utility line is to be placed within the City, it should go
underground within a public right-of-way. With regard to the question of whether the
City could deny the utility line itself, he reported that the City has no authority to do so.
Commissioner Questions
Commissioner Deaton clanfied that what the PC must determine is whether this Item is
consistent with the City's GP. Mr. Cummins confirmed that this was correct
Commissioner Deaton asked if by putting in the line to feed water to the Bolsa Chica
Mesa to allow for new development, the City of Seal Beach would then be impacted by
traffic, making this project inconsistent with the City's GP Mr. Abbe stated that he
believes that the issue is limited to the water line itself and not the entire Bolsa Chica
Project. Mr. Cummins noted that the finding of adequacy with regard to traffic is really
an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) finding. Commissioner Deaton asked if an EIR
was completed. Mr. Cummins stated that an EIR and Draft Supplement EIR were
completed on this project, which Included a section on traffic. Commissioner Deaton
asked if the City filed a lawsuit on this project. Mr. Abbe stated that there was a lawsuit
Involving the EIR, which concluded several years ago. Commissioner Deaton asked
what the result was. Mr. Abbe stated that there is now a certified EIR with specific
changes. He referred to the copies provided in the Staff Report of the response to
comments made by the City on the Bolsa Chica EIR. Commissioner Deaton
emphaSized that her concern is that If the City sued against this project for traffic
reasons, which would affect the GP, how can the PC turn around and approve getting
water to this project? She said the City would be fighting Itself. Mr. Cummins
interjected that the City has no ability to not approve a waterline, but must issue a
permit through the Public Works Department for installation of the waterline through a
utility company recognrzed by the Public Utilities Commission. He reiterated that the PC
is being asked to make a finding that if a water line is to be installed, it should be
undergrounded whenever possible and be in the public right-of-way.
Commissioner Shanks asked what would happen If the PC were to vote against
conformity? Mr. Abbe explained that the City is required to submit a report to the Water
Authority, and whether It states that the waterline IS consistent or not consistent, the
report must still be filed. As to whether there would be legal exposure would be a
separate question. Commissioner Shanks stated that the Associate Planner had stated
that the City must Issue a permit whether the PC approves this or not. He asked why
the City was even reviewing this Issue at all? Mr. Cummins explained that the City is
not approving a waterline, but is simply making a determination that this waterline
project is in conformity With the City's Safety Element. Commissioner Shanks again
asked if the vote were to deny, what would happen? Mr. Abbe stated that thiS would
essentially be a no action, and the Resolution for denial could be adopted at the next
meeting. Commissioner Shanks stated that It was difficult for him to reconcile that while
working to control traffic along Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), the City is being forced to
say that building a waterline that will add more homes and more traffiC to the area IS in
conformance With the City's GP.
7
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
.
City of Seal Beach Plannmg Commission
Meetmg Mmutes of March 19, 2003
Public Comment
Vice-Chairperson Sharp opened the public comment session.
Mr. Ron Deaton stated that as he understands, the City of Seal Beach (COSB) is at the
end of the water pipe and he is certain that there are several other cities that are in non-
conformance with the Government Code. Vice-Chairperson Sharp corrected Mr.
Deaton by noting that the waterline that comes from Cypress goes through the COSB
and does not end here. Mr. Deaton said that there is no municipal utility in Southern
California that places their pipes above ground, so he doesn't believe there is much at
risk in denying this item. He said that if no other cities have taken action to find this in
conformance, there must be a reason and he does not see that there is much at risk in
denying this Item. He said that if the COSB objected to this project in the beginning, it
would not be appropriate to find It in conformity now.
Mr. Dave Hood stated that many years ago the COSB jOined a lawsuit against
development at Bolsa Chica because the Draft EIR was not responsive to the City's
comments on the traffic Impact on PCH. He noted that the COSB rarely sues, but in
this case the City found It important enough to do so. He said it would be strange to
vote to approve the conformity of this waterline for a project that the City has opposed
from its inception. He stated that he is not concerned with any impact upon his property
but with the traffic impact on PCH. He encouraged the PC to find that this waterline IS
not in conformance With the GP. He recommended forwarding this Issue to City Council
for their determination on this Item.
Ms. Reva Olsen spoke in opposition to approving GP conformity for this waterline. She
said that City Council has always spoken against the project and its impact on traffic
and just bUilding on the mesa in general.
Mr. DaVid Rosenman stated that the PC would be putting the cart before the horse, as
he believes this is a matter to be heard by City Council. He recommended denying this
item or taking no action whatsoever.
Mr. Bill McDonald from the Engineering and Planning Department of the Southern
California Water Company encouraged the PC to follow the recommendations of Staff.
Vice-Chairperson Sharp asked if it would be possible to simply refer this item to City
Council without taking a vote tonight. Mr. Abbe stated that a finding must be made
tonight pnor to forwarding to City CouncIl.
MOTION by Deaton; SECOND by Shanks to deny GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY -
Bolsa Chica Street Waterline Easement (Bnghtwater Proposed Water Transmission
Line Route) and forward to City CounCil for their determination. Direct Staff to return
With amended Resolution 03-9 reflecting this decision.
MOTION CARRIED: 4 - 0 - 1
8
.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
.
CIty of Seal Beach Plannmg CommIssIon
Meetmg Mmutes of March 19, 2003
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Deaton, Ladner, Shanks, and Sharp
None
None
Hood
STAFF CONCERNS
None.
COMMISSION CONCERNS
Commissioner Deaton stated that with the news tOnight that the United States is
officially at war she wished to express her thanks to those individuals In the military and
their families for what they are enduring on all our behalf. The other Commissioners
unanimously agreed.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairperson Hood adjourned the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
~ ~~..~ ^- ~~/
Carmen Alvarez, Executrve Secretary
Planning Department
APPROVAL
The Commission on May 7, 2003, approved the Minutes of the Planning Commission
Meeting of Wednesday, March 19,2003. C'..A .
9